From the first entry in Cambridge Dictionary (though there may certainly be more than one valid definition to consider, this is the one I have been using): > (

From the first entry in Cambridge Dictionary (though there may certainly be more than one valid definition to consider, this is the one I have been using): > (a) serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part The debate I'm referring to is here, the discussion between commenters on HN about which name should be used (I'm well on the side of Gulf of Mexico as well). One does not need to see multi-sided nuance on the topic itself to engage in debate, they just need to engage in discussion about it. We can certainly choose to not have serious discussion, skipping straight to the name calling summaries instead. I'd consider that a great loss of one of the last open places on the internet where you could avoid that jump whenever something political comes up. I agree the rename has no good reasons, causes upset & confusion, and was seemingly done out of nothing but hubris & political tactics. I disagree the way to communicate that is just by replying the president is a crybaby instead of seriously discussing these points directly. Please don't mistake that as saying we shouldn't push back or "both sides are right". It's purely about what was on the original tin - can we still have serious discussion here instead of jumping straight to how much we don't like someone as the only reason why.